4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

That juror better not be outed, or the crazies will kill him.

Saw an interesting item of news, a man asked his fiancee just before the wedding if she supported Lindsay Clancy. She said she strongly supported her. At which the man then cancelled the wedding.

This is the new test. Men need to ask "So that Clancy trial, huh, did you follow it?" and see if she is a crazed supporter of female derangement.

Nearly all westen women are deranged, quite a lot of them can hide it until they become legally entitled to half your assets. Your questions merely sort the bad liars from the crowd.

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Nearly all westen women are deranged, quite a lot of them can hide it until they become legally entitled to half your assets. Your questions merely sort the bad liars from the crowd.

This is why they support Clancy all the way, because they themselves are crazy. And they know it!

43 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Does that mean you think men should have only men on their jury? Or Whites only Whites, Blacks only Blacks, and Hispanics only Hispanics?

Depends in which country you live.

In the UK white British men only, women too unstable (re:Clancy), foreigners shouldn't be allowed to participate in our justice system.

Edited 9 hours ago9 hr by BritManToo

52 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I’ve yet to hear officially about how many jurors voted which way, guilty or not guilty, nor about their gender. Clancy’s lawyer has said it was one male juror, but I haven’t seen that authenticated. Have any of you?

It can never be officially "authenticated".

Who would authenticate it?

24 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

It can never be officially "authenticated".

Who would authenticate it?

Maybe he thinks Clancy's defense lawyer is a dubious source?

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

The lawyer for Clancy is on record for disclosing it was a male in his argument with judge. I saw the exchange with my own eyes.

Documented here as well:

“That juror told you that he would be able to apply the law to the facts as you asked him,” Reddington went on, revealing the juror’s gender for the first time.

https://nypost.com/2026/09/04/us-news/lindsay-clancy-defense-confirms-holdout-juror-is-male/

I don’t consider Clancy’s lawyer a legitimate source of this information.

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

Wow! 11-1. This has been very much in the news.

Yes, but if you listen carefully, the judge and the prosecutor have not given out this information. I haven't heard any authorized source of information reveal how many voted against not guilty, and what their gender was.

33 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I’ve yet to hear officially about how many jurors voted which way, guilty or not guilty, nor about their gender. Clancy’s lawyer has said it was one male juror, but I haven’t seen that authenticated. Have any of you?

It can never be officially "authenticated".

Who would authenticate it?

The judge could authenticate it. Any of the other jurors could authenticate it, that is, if you believed them. But Clancy’s lawyer is not, IMO, a legitimate source of authentication.

11 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I don’t consider Clancy’s lawyer a legitimate source of this information.

Pray tell on what basis would you doubt a statement by one of the main lawyers involved in the case, who is privy to all the jury information, indeed helped form the jury, about the juror being male?

I would love to hear your rationale for this.

The Lefties will lobby to allow mummy to "abort" their children up to the age of 7, or 9 or 10. I'm pretty sure this woman will get away with murder, her case will set a precedence, and when US women in Blue States grow tired of motherhood, they'll just "off" their children with the blessings of the state and "women's rights" group. This is sick. I glad to see one juror had the sack to hold out.

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Nearly all westen women are deranged, quite a lot of them can hide it until they become legally entitled to half your assets. Your questions merely sort the bad liars from the crowd.

I left Western Women back in the West 19 years ago and I've never looked back.

1 minute ago, connda said:

I'm pretty sure this woman will get away with murder, her case will set a precedence

It's virtually certain. In the current climate who could blame the prosecutors for deciding against doing a second trial. With millions of supporters, and millions of Dollars funding her, Clancy will have the last laugh. The prosecutors who would do a second trial would fear for their lives.

Already we saw a copy cat murder by a deranged woman in Illinois.

On 9/5/2026 at 2:25 PM, Smokey and the Bandit said:

The guy who was the holdout, not only resisted 11 peers, but also maintained their position after the judge brought each juror in for private questioning and delivered a formal re-instruction reminding them of their sworn oath to follow the law.

He must have a cast iron will!

The guy is a testament to a one-man jury nullification.

42 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Pray tell on what basis would you doubt a statement by one of the main lawyers involved in the case, who is privy to all the jury information, indeed helped form the jury, about the juror being male?

I would love to hear your rationale for this.

Lawyers lie, both in court, to the police and to their customers.

In fact, my very own criminal lawyer instructed me to lie in court. He said if caught in a lie to tell the judge it was under his instruction. I wouldn't be punished, the judge might shout at him in court, but they'd still be having lunch and drinks and laughs together in the pub after my trial.

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

The judge could authenticate it. Any of the other jurors could authenticate it, that is, if you believed them. But Clancy’s lawyer is not, IMO, a legitimate source of authentication.

I believe it would be illegal for the judge to do such a thing.

Just imagine a judge telling an angry crowd who the holdout was.

Why would you believe the jurors? I think the jury foreman already said it was one man that was the holdout.

A low value post has been removed:

13. Low-Value Posts - Posts that add no written contribution are not allowed.

    This includes emoji-only replies, very short comments, memes, GIFs, screenshots, or embedded social media posts without explanation or opinion.

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Lawyers lie, both in court, to the police and to their customers.

In fact, my very own criminal lawyer instructed me to lie in court. He said if caught in a lie to tell the judge it was under his instruction. I wouldn't be punished, the judge might shout at him in court, but they'd still be having lunch and drinks and laughs together in the pub after my trial.

But not in court, that would be a big problem for the lawyer, if he tells the judge the juror was male, then that is the case. What reason would the lawyer to have to lie about the gender?

3 hours ago, WDSmart said:

Does that mean you think men should have only men on their jury? Or Whites only Whites, Blacks only Blacks, and Hispanics only Hispanics?

That could create some problems , sure.

But the law says judged by a jury of peers.

Some are certainly not my peers.

20 hours ago, temuFarang said:

I believe we need to have child molesters judged by a jury of child molesters . That would make the system fairer.

You're taking things too far.

This is not what I meant in my original reply to Dinsdale's post.

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

Pray tell on what basis would you doubt a statement by one of the main lawyers involved in the case, who is privy to all the jury information, indeed helped form the jury, about the juror being male?

I would love to hear your rationale for this.

I doubt a statement made by the defense lawyer of the accused because he was trying to get a juror (or maybe more than one) dismissed so his client would have a chance of getting a not-guilty verdict. I believe at least part of the reason he made the statements he did was to arouse public sentiment so his motion would be accepted.

And you don’t have to “pray” to me, or anyone or anything, to get me to answer a question.

1 minute ago, FlorC said:

That could create some problems , sure.

But the law says judged by a jury of peers.

Some are certainly not my peers.

The law does not care how you define peers.

Ans what law are you talking about? Certainly not the Constitution.

4 minutes ago, FlorC said:

That could create some problems , sure.

But the law says judged by a jury of peers.

Some are certainly not my peers.

Here is Microsoft’s AI, CoPilot’s, definition of “peer”:

https://r.bing.com/rp/eCgvJl1QRtQFRkpvWTUD2vjLsqQ.svg

In law, “peers” refers to individuals considered equal to a person—most commonly adult citizens from the same community who may serve on a jury (“a jury of one’s peers”). This does not require similarity in age, race, profession, or background; it simply means impartial citizens drawn from the same geographic area.

5 minutes ago, FlorC said:

You're taking things too far.

This is not what I meant in my original reply to Dinsdale's post.

What did you mean?

6 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I doubt a statement made by the defense lawyer of the accused because he was trying to get a juror (or maybe more than one) dismissed so his client would have a chance of getting a not-guilty verdict. I believe at least part of the reason he made the statements he did was to arouse public sentiment so his motion would be accepted.

And you don’t have to “pray” to me, or anyone or anything, to get me to answer a question.

The lawyer's intent was to intimidate the juror into changing their vote.

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Depends in which country you live.

In the UK white British men only, women too unstable (re:Clancy), foreigners shouldn't be allowed to participate in our justice system.

100% agree.

The bastard British have undermined hard fought for English laws:

If a woman can kill a child at 9 months, why not 9 years?

Do we think that if a man killed his kids because he was depressed, and on drugs that we'd be having this conversation?

22 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I doubt a statement made by the defense lawyer of the accused because he was trying to get a juror (or maybe more than one) dismissed so his client would have a chance of getting a not-guilty verdict.

If he was trying get a juror dismissed, what good would it do him to FALSELY state the gender of the juror as "male"? You think confusing the judge on this point would make it more likely he would get a not-guilty verdict?

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

Yes, but if you listen carefully, the judge and the prosecutor have not given out this information. I haven't heard any authorized source of information reveal how many voted against not guilty, and what their gender was.

If YOU listenten carefully you will hear the prosector refer to the one juror that didm't agree with the emotional lefties as "he".

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

If a woman can kill a child at 9 months, why not 9 years?

Do we think that if a man killed his kids because he was depressed, and on drugs that we'd be having this conversation?

Spoiler Alert: She'll be given not guilty - EXACT same circumstances (pediatric nurse, 3 kids, hubby out at work, Kids have the same initials for their Christian names AND IT HAPPENED oN THE SAME DAY (3 years apart)!:

Deirdre Morley Story - Ireland: January 24, 2020.
Lindsay Clancy Story - USA : January 24, 2023.
Same exact date.
Three years apart.
Both mothers were pediatric nurses.

Both had three children — two boys and one girl.

Both involved strangulation.

Both husbands were at work.

Both cases became battles over mental illness versus responsibility.

And the names?

Connor, Dara, Carla. v

Cora, Dawson, Kayla.

Can you see it yet boomers - or too far gone???

Deirdre Morley: Mother found not guilty of murdering chil...

Deirdre Morley is found not guilty, by reason of insanity, of murdering her three children in Dublin.

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by Tourist2

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

The lawyer's intent was to intimidate the juror into changing their vote.

Yes, I’m sure that was it, but again, no unprejudiced and competent authority has announced how many jurors there were in the split or what their genders were.